On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible. You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

Oh I've already said Trump is not a fiscal conservative. Not all republicans agree with his overall budget is the problem. But his tax cuts are in alignment with fiscal conservatism. Some fiscal conservatives would even like to see taxes cut further.

We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we? You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances. It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support. The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience. Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income. They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes. We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income. Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income?

Taxes are just income too. Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff. A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make. I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism. It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc). They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed. The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.

We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we? You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances. It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support. The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience. Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income. They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes. We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income. Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income?

Taxes are just income too. Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff. A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make. I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism. It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc). They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed. The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.

Maybe this is why Calvin Coolidge didn't get a seat at the table in the now-famous painting of republican presidents having a drink.

"Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt." Thomas Jefferson was was sort of the early champion of this view.

I don't think this is true. It's certainly not true of any the republicans currently in the House or Senate who voted for the Trump tax cuts. Which is pretty much all of them, isn't it?

Not sure I follow your logic. We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible. You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

Exactly. It's roughly analogous to putting purchases on your credit card while making no preparations to actually pay for the charges. That's not fiscal conservatism.

On its own and resulting in a climbing deficit, which is what happened with the Trump tax bill, it is fiscally irresponsible. You can't say fiscal conservatism is a 3 part structure and then say you get the same result by only creating one of the three parts.

Oh I've already said Trump is not a fiscal conservative. Not all republicans agree with his overall budget is the problem. But his tax cuts are in alignment with fiscal conservatism. Some fiscal conservatives would even like to see taxes cut further.

sol (and now dustin22 and Kris) has made good points above on how tax cuts relate to responsible finances.

I'd just like to state that at this point you cannot separate Trump from the elected republican members of Congress, who have adopted and voted for his financial policies wholesale. So if Trump is not a fiscal conservative, neither are his republican fellow travellers in Congress.

"Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt." Thomas Jefferson was was sort of the early champion of this view.

Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier). Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.

Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier). Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.

Of course. My point is, one can vote to lower taxes and still be a fiscal conservative. Congress passing tax cuts does not necessarily mean its out of alignment with fiscal conservative views.

Now the budget, thats where we should be looking, not the tax cuts. I'd agree that currently much of congress does not represent fiscal conservative views. Not all, but the majority.

Ethically, The Dems already called for an investigation, and they (sort of) did one. So the Dems did their due dilligence; they aired their concerns and called for an investigation at the time it mattered (before he was confirmed).

Politically, it has never happened, that a sitting SCOTUS justice has been removed after being confirmed. So even if more evidence comes out, it is extremely, extremely unlikely that it would have any effect on him being removed. Even if another 3, 4 women come out. Politically it doesn't help the Dems to continue to call for an investigation. They don't have any power to ask for more, and even if there was one, Republicans make the decision what to do with that information (hint: nothing). Also politically they are getting blowback in conservative states for having the gall to protest Kavanaugh in the first place.

Personally, Ford is NOT asking for legal prosecution and conviction. She didn't want to have this be public in the first place, let alone make this her life. She only came forward because she felt he was unfit to be a supreme court nominee based on her personal knowledge, and was willing to tell her story and be questioned under oath. She has done this two times, one in front of the senate committee, and one with the FBI.

Legally, for something that happened 25+ years ago and in a he said, she said situation, there is probably no way to arrive at the "truth". Certainly no way for a legal conviction, which is probably the only thing that would convince some people. So I'm not sure what you think an additional investigation would add. For example in the William Kennedy Smith case, 3, 4 additional women came forward with sexual assault claims during the rape trial. However none of their testimony was considered or admitted into evidence. So, it doesn't really matter how many women come forward, if none have an iron tight case against him (which looks to be the case). Which leaves us where we are.

We’ve already established lower taxes is one of the components of fiscal conservativism.

Have we? You have asserted as much, but that doesn't make it true.

Fiscal conservativism is about prudently managing the nation's finances. It's about ensuring that our government has the resources it needs to fund the programs it wants to support. The "lower taxes" portion of fiscal conservativism has been more recently incorporated because some republicans used to argue that "tax cuts pay for themselves with increased economic activity" but that certainly hasn't been born out by the past thirty years of experience. Key to that argument is the implicit assumption that we're not trying to destroy the government, only trying to make sure that it spends in proportion to its income. They supported "lower taxes" because they argued it would lead to increase government revenues, not because they wanted the government to make less money.

For example, the government makes money from a variety of sources besides income taxes. We generate billions from leasing federal lands to oil and gas companies, and these lease royalties are federal income. Do you think fiscal conservatives would suggest that we stop leasing land to oil companies, because the government should have less income?

Taxes are just income too. Not just income tax, but corporate taxes and OASDI taxes and sales taxes and property taxes, they all contribute to government coffers and then government uses those funds to pay for stuff. A prudent financial manager would ensure that we don't pay out more than we make. I see absolutely no reason why a prudent financial manager would suggest lowering your income.

And that's the great lie of fiscal conservativism. It's really just angry rich capitalists who don't want to fund the government programs that have made them into rich capitalists (i.e. roads, courts, power grids, education, etc). They try to couch this "I want to be richer" argument in the language of fiscal conservativism as if there were some moral imperative behind it, instead of personal greed. The current crop of republican politicians have really turned this argument up to 11, by feeding the angry rich capitalists they lower rates they wanted, while simultaneously increasing spending in a way that very clearly highlights the complete disregard for prudent financial management principals that used to underlie their fiscal conservativism rallying cry.

+1 I am worried that Trump has so thoroughly addicted his elderly white base to the joy of "owning the libs" that they will be ready to endorse Paul Ryan's fever dream of cutting SS and Medicare if it's sold to them as cutting off government largesse to the more liberal and diverse younger generations. The Republican legislators aren't suicidal, so they'll structure it so that racist grandmas get their full benefits while phasing out benefits for younger generations. So far, every time they've tried it, it's created enough unease among older voters that it hasn't gone anywhere. I don't think that the unease is worry about their grandkids-more like worry about themselves. But I think there's a needle to be threaded that could work if the Republicans can tie younger generations to brown people who are, of course, undeserving government mooches unlike the people getting benefits now. That will activate the cruelty pleasure center in these voters at the thought of hurting people who aren't like them, which I think is the driving force for the Trump base. He certainly knows how to motivate them.

"Fiscal conservatism is a political position (primarily in the United States) that calls for lower levels of public spending, lower taxes and lower government debt." Thomas Jefferson was was sort of the early champion of this view.

Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier). Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.

Yeah, the current budget is like, we are going to stop collecting rent on our friends who owe us money (cutting taxes), we are going to stop paying for or sevely cut down on investing in retirement, health insurance, college payments, and fixing our house, yard (social security, ACA, education, environment, infrastructure), but we ARE going to buy one or heck a dozen top of the line SUVs (military). Despite cutting the recurring bills, the combined loss from income, and increase of expenditures both blows the budget and makes one vulnerable to future catastrophes. That's not being a fiscal conservative. Long term it's suicidal.

Yes, that quote demonstrates that there are three points required for something to be fiscally conservative (as previously mentioned by former player earlier). Cutting taxes on their own does not constitute fiscal responsibility.

Of course. My point is, one can vote to lower taxes and still be a fiscal conservative. Congress passing tax cuts does not necessarily mean its out of alignment with fiscal conservative views.

Now the budget, thats where we should be looking, not the tax cuts. I'd agree that currently much of congress does not represent fiscal conservative views. Not all, but the majority.

By your logic, someone who votes to give every American alive 1 billion dollars a day but cuts tax rates by 1% is a fiscal conservative. See how silly that argument gets?

No you can't be a fiscal conservative by ignoring two of the three tenants required to be a fiscal conservative.

The logic tree is simple. Lower taxes is part of fiscal conservatism. You cannot determine if someone is a fiscal conservative or not by this one policy alone. Hence, pointing to Rand Paul's stance on lowering taxes is not enough to make that determination. I never argued Rand Paul is definitely fiscally conservative. Rather, I responded to a post pointing to his stance on taxes as proof he's not a fiscal conservative. It seemed to me lacking in elementary logic since lower taxes is one of the key tenets of a fiscal conservative. It would be like saying "Look, that guy over there is definitely not Mustachian because he rides a bike." Then again, like I said, I'm slow and not very smart so I probably am missing something obvious.

The logic tree is simple. Lower taxes is part of fiscal conservatism. You cannot determine if someone is a fiscal conservative or not by this one policy alone. Hence, pointing to Rand Paul's stance on lowering taxes is not enough to make that determination. I never argued Rand Paul is definitely fiscally conservative. Rather, I responded to a post pointing to his stance on taxes as proof he's not a fiscal conservative. It seemed to me lacking in elementary logic since lower taxes is one of the key tenets of a fiscal conservative. It would be like saying "Look, that guy over there is definitely not Mustachian because he lives in a McMansion and uses his F-350 to transport his bike 500 feet down the road to the bike path" Then again, like I said, I'm slow and not very smart so I probably am missing something obvious.

The logic tree is simple. Lower taxes is part of fiscal conservatism. You cannot determine if someone is a fiscal conservative or not by this one policy alone.

Granted, in a vacuum. But how about if you started out within a relevant context instead, like the real world? Then you could consider other things like the current state of the national budget/deficit/debt. Might this one policy then have effects on some of the other tenants of "fiscal conservatism" beyond lower taxes?

Lowering taxes is not fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is lowering the deficit and/or balancing the budget. Lowering taxes raises the deficit, which is counterproductive towards that goal.

Unless you cut government expenditures by more than you cut government income, which appears to be the real goal. Republicans have hated America's social safety net since the days of FDR, and they cannot accept that these programs have helped shape our country into the powerhouse it is today. They desperately want to return to 1930s social policies, where transients roamed the land in search of work and widows starved in dark alleys. That's the world without the "entitlements" that republicans are trying so hard to get rid of.

Lowering taxes (on rich people only, not on poor people) was just a sacrificial gambit. They always knew it would bankrupt the country to lose so much income, and Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan have both publicly stated that they hope to use the looming budget deficits as an excuse to cut entitlement spending. It's not that lowering taxes was a laudable goal in itself, it was just a ploy to motivate people to vote for the republican's real policy objective (rolling back the New Deal) that they've been harping on for almost a century now.

Fiscal conservatives want the country to be financially solvent. You don't do that by reducing government income while simultaneously increasing government spending. What congressional republicans have been doing is the exact opposite of fiscal conservativism. A true fiscal conservative would advocate for higher taxes and less spending, not the other way around.

Some here seem to want to redefine what Fiscal Conservatism is. That's fine, but it would be better to use a different term so that we avoid terminological tangle issues. Debating over the definition of a term is not very useful and only causes confusion. It's important to use a common definition and then debate the concept.

I will say that Rand Paul has shown at times a willingness to diverge from the GOP line on other matters. Other Neocons favored muscular foreign policy when Paul hasn't. Other Neocons were silent when Police seemed to be killing black citizens without due process, and Paul spoke out then, too. There is a bit of a maverick in him.

Some here seem to want to redefine what Fiscal Conservatism is. That's fine, but it would be better to use a different term so that we avoid terminological tangle issues. Debating over the definition of a term is not very useful and only causes confusion. It's important to use a common definition and then debate the concept.

Fiscal conservatism is a political-economic philosophy regarding fiscal policy and fiscal responsibility advocating low taxes, reduced government spending and minimal government debt. Free trade, deregulation of the economy, lower taxes, and privatization are the defining qualities of fiscal conservatism.

Of course, "low taxes" is a relative term, so its useless to really discuss it unless we have some sort of bearing on what it means.

I'll just throw my hat in the ring and agree that you're missing the earlier points. "Fiscal conservatism" is a doctrine that embraces all three (low spending, low taxes, low debt) so that it achieves the goal of being fiscally responsible. If you are voting to lower taxes but increase spending (and therefore increase the debt) you are not a fiscal conservative because you are working in the opposite direction of the goal, regardless of your sound bites that you repeat to your constituents.

I'll just throw my hat in the ring and agree that you're missing the earlier points. "Fiscal conservatism" is a doctrine that embraces all three (low spending, low taxes, low debt) so that it achieves the goal of being fiscally responsible. If you are voting to lower taxes but increase spending (and therefore increase the debt) you are not a fiscal conservative because you are working in the opposite direction of the goal, regardless of your sound bites that you repeat to your constituents.

I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes. I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative.

Yes, that article discussed taxes only, so you have a defensible point there.

Kris' follow-up post showing the debt chart, however, is a different point. I'll call it a tie between you and Kris here. :)

I'm not sure what the debt chart was supposed to illustrate either, to be quite honest. The debt increased dramatically during Obama's era (almost doubled, in fact). Now of course there are many factors for why this is, but this just further illustrates in my view why you can't use a simple debt chart to determine what economic policies are the most effective in managing the national debt.

I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes. I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative.

Yes, that article discussed taxes only, so you have a defensible point there.

Kris' follow-up post showing the debt chart, however, is a different point. I'll call it a tie between you and Kris here. :)

To clarify, the reason I posted the taxes only post was because I assumed it was common knowledge among informed people (which I generally assume most people to be here) what the effect of that tax cut had been for the debt. I didn't realize that point needed to be explained.

I was merely responding to the article posted by Kris in regards to his position on lower taxes. I don't think this was a good example of trying to illustrate that he's not a fiscal conservative.

Yes, that article discussed taxes only, so you have a defensible point there.

Kris' follow-up post showing the debt chart, however, is a different point. I'll call it a tie between you and Kris here. :)

I'm not sure what the debt chart was supposed to illustrate either, to be quite honest. The debt increased dramatically during Obama's era (almost doubled, in fact). Now of course there are many factors for why this is, but this just further illustrates in my view why you can't use a simple debt chart to determine what economic policies are the most effective in managing the national debt.

Of course the most obvious of the "many factors" is that we were intentionally deficit spending to turn around the largest economic downturn since the Great Depression. And it worked.

What Republicans are doing is increasing deficit spending during an incredibly strong economy, which doesn't make any kind of sense at all. But sure, I suppose there might be some "fiscal conservatives" in there somewhere that just aren't ready to come out of the closet yet.

Fiscal conservatism seems to wrap two things together, that really should be separate. One is fiscal responsibility: that whatever one spends, one should take in, i.e. a balanced budget. Even the most fiscal conservative however know that there are some times the GOV must spend money, for economic stimulus during a recession, etc so even a pure fiscally responsible politician would most likely have some exceptions to balanced budget, 0 deficit in 100% of situations. Still, a balanced budget and reduction in deficit is the goal.

The 2nd is ideology: that government is "too big" and must be made smaller. One of the ways to do that is to starve it: cut taxes to the extent that pretty standard things the government traditionally provides, is unaffordable.I think people confuse the two.

You can have high taxes, and a balanced budget and a very health economy. In fact during the "good old days" of post war boom, both personal and corporate taxes were much higher than they are now. They did not harm the economy.

In the same way, you can cut taxes, but be financially irresponsible, as in the current case. They are cutting taxes, without balancing the budget, and also INCREASING spending in some areas, particularly the military. Defense is so large that we don't even know what they are doing. They lose/misplace millions on a regular basis.The Republicans cut taxes first stating that it would stimulate the economy and that stimulated economy would replace the reductions in tax rates with an overall increased base (supply side economics/ aka voodoo economics). Before the tax cuts were enacted, economists explained why this would not really work. https://itep.org/moodys-and-conservative-economists-agree-the-trump-corporate-tax-cut-is-not-helping-workers/But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

Fiscal conservatism seems to wrap two things together, that really should be separate. One is fiscal responsibility: that whatever one spends, one should take in, i.e. a balanced budget. Even the most fiscal conservative however know that there are some times the GOV must spend money, for economic stimulus during a recession, etc so even a pure fiscally responsible politician would most likely have some exceptions to balanced budget, 0 deficit in 100% of situations. Still, a balanced budget and reduction in deficit is the goal.

The 2nd is ideology: that government is "too big" and must be made smaller. One of the ways to do that is to starve it: cut taxes to the extent that pretty standard things the government traditionally provides, is unaffordable.I think people confuse the two.

You can have high taxes, and a balanced budget and a very health economy. In fact during the "good old days" of post war boom, both personal and corporate taxes were much higher than they are now. They did not harm the economy.

In the same way, you can cut taxes, but be financially irresponsible, as in the current case. They are cutting taxes, without balancing the budget, and also INCREASING spending in some areas, particularly the military. Defense is so large that we don't even know what they are doing. They lose/misplace millions on a regular basis.The Republicans cut taxes first stating that it would stimulate the economy and that stimulated economy would replace the reductions in tax rates with an overall increased base (supply side economics/ aka voodoo economics). Before the tax cuts were enacted, economists explained why this would not really work. https://itep.org/moodys-and-conservative-economists-agree-the-trump-corporate-tax-cut-is-not-helping-workers/But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, which they seem to have contempt for.

The Federal government is a "monetary sovereign", so can run persistent deficits.

Kansas is not. While I agree that Brownback was a bad governor, saying that something didn't work for a state doesn't automatically imply it would not work for the Federal government. In fact, nearly all states have a constitutional requirement to balance their budgets. Every. Single. Year.

States should try to keep a balanced budget, and they should work hard at it. That's why it puzzles me when states cut state income tax, when they know they have essential services (like education) they must provide. It ends up eroding the quality of life of people in those states, as well as reduce companies incentives to move there (no base of educated, healthy populace).

saying that something didn't work for a state doesn't automatically imply it would not work for the Federal government.

In this case, I think it absolutely does.

Kansas was not trying to run perpetual deficits, which is what the federal government could choose to do. Kansas dramatically cut income taxes in an effort to create jobs and attract investments, with the thought that they would generate more revenue even with the new lower rates. It failed. It was just another example of the "tax cuts pay for themselves" argument, and it didn't work in Kansas just like it has never worked anywhere else either.

What Kansas tried and failed to do also does not work at the federal level. Deficits are the natural result of cutting taxes without reducing spending. This is not some complicated voodoo economics theory, this is arithmetic.

States should try to keep a balanced budget, and they should work hard at it. That's why it puzzles me when states cut state income tax, when they know they have essential services (like education) they must provide. It ends up eroding the quality of life of people in those states, as well as reduce companies incentives to move there (no base of educated, healthy populace).

Income tax is not the only way to get revenue. Property tax, sales tax, etc- states have to decide which ones they want to use.

But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party. The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc. Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state. What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor. So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos). It's pretty damn scary.

But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party. The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc. Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state. What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor. So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos). It's pretty damn scary.

Whenever I hear people who believe this, the prosperity gospel, or that you are rewarded for being good by being materially better of in this world, even if it means screwing other people, I wonder; did they really READ the New Testesmant? Do they have a different Bible than I have? Because the message, is not subtle. I am not practising but the way I was raised, if you are rewarded with prosperity, your reward is to be able to help others (not yourself).

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you."

"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party. The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc. Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state. What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor. So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos). It's pretty damn scary.

Whenever I hear people who believe this, the prosperity gospel, or that you are rewarded for being good by being materially better of in this world, even if it means screwing other people, I wonder; do they REALLY read the New Testesmant? Do they have a different Bible than I have? Because the message, is not subtle. I am not practizing but the way I was raised, if you are rewarded with prosperity, your reward is to be able to help others (not yourself).

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you."

"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

I have literally never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these passages.

But, I don't think the Republicans care. All they really care about it a) helping the donor class, the people funding their party, their campaigns in a really crappy quid pro quo, and b) give a rational for cutting a whole slew of programs that personally benefit the average American, whom they seem to have contempt for.

I was confused by this until I read an article about how Dominionists and Dominionists within the group the Council for National Policy, became very influential in Trump's campaign and the Republican party. The membership on the CFNP is interesting - Kellyanne Conway, Brent Bozell, Jay Sekelow, Rich Devos, Charlie Kirk, Steve Bannon, David Bossie, Stuart Epperson, Tony Perkins, Oliver North, Leonard Leo, Paul Weyrich, etc. Mercers contribute to the group, but don't show on any membership lists. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/cnp_redacted_final.pdf

They believe America is a Christian nation and they oppose the separation of church and state. What helped me understand the cruelty, is that they consider being rich a mark of God's favor and being poor a mark of God's disfavor. So you have a bunch of people that are don't want to pay taxes because money is everything to them (like Trump) combined with a bunch of people that think they and what they are doing are favored by God because they are rich (think Betsy Devos). It's pretty damn scary.

Whenever I hear people who believe this, the prosperity gospel, or that you are rewarded for being good by being materially better of in this world, even if it means screwing other people, I wonder; do they REALLY read the New Testesmant? Do they have a different Bible than I have? Because the message, is not subtle. I am not practizing but the way I was raised, if you are rewarded with prosperity, your reward is to be able to help others (not yourself).

“If your brother becomes poor and cannot maintain himself with you, you shall support him as though he were a stranger and a sojourner, and he shall live with you."

"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."

"A righteous man knows the rights of the poor; a wicked man does not understand such knowledge."

“When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.

"But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?"

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

I have literally never heard a conservative Christian quote any of these passages.

And there's at least a half dozen more. Here's one for Trump: Whoever mocks the poor insults his Maker; he who is glad at calamity will not go unpunished.

For every cause, people pick and choose the parts of the Bible to listen to. Prosperity gospel is not alone in this.

No one is alone in that, in that some parts may speak to you more. But it bothers me, how those who have those beliefs, can very simply look up what are the standard interpretations and teachings, and don't care to.

and the practice of fundamentalist Christians, who will pick on minor things in the Old Testament as important, or twist passages to mean something they don't (while ignoring clear passages that contradict their interpretation), however, ignore the core teachings and message of Christ? How can you call yourself a Christian?

James 2:1-5 "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him?"

Ok, I'll stop now : ) But seriously, these quotes happen over and over again. If they were taking a test on the Bible they would flunk.

There are charlatan preachers who may preach prosperity gospel and related stuff, but those are not mainstream

Not mainstream? Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen preached to fifty thousand people per week, in person. That doesn't even count his television audience. Can you name a a larger congregation anywhere in the world?

What could possibly be more mainstream than that? The man literally goes on Oprah to preach his twisted version of Christianity to millions. Oprah! She's like the human embodiment of shitty things that have gone mainstream!

There are charlatan preachers who may preach prosperity gospel and related stuff, but those are not mainstream

Not mainstream? Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen preached to fifty thousand people per week, in person. That doesn't even count his television audience. Can you name a a larger congregation anywhere in the world?

What could possibly be more mainstream than that? The man literally goes on Oprah to preach his twisted version of Christianity to millions. Oprah! She's like the human embodiment of shitty things that have gone mainstream!

What I mean by mainstream, is by Biblical scholarship. Not mainstream as in "popular".

Oprah, I love that you do a book club. But some of the people you push, oh Oprah...

There are charlatan preachers who may preach prosperity gospel and related stuff, but those are not mainstream

Not mainstream? Prosperity preacher Joel Osteen preached to fifty thousand people per week, in person. That doesn't even count his television audience. Can you name a a larger congregation anywhere in the world?

What could possibly be more mainstream than that? The man literally goes on Oprah to preach his twisted version of Christianity to millions. Oprah! She's like the human embodiment of shitty things that have gone mainstream!

What I mean by mainstream, is by Biblical scholarship. Not mainstream as in "popular".

Oprah, I love that you do a book club. But some of the people you push, oh Oprah...

So really not mainstream at all? Biblical scholarship is incredibly niche; extremely limited in scope.